The Ethiopian National Dialogue Committee is under heavy question today. People ask if this so-called consultation committee can fix lost issues or deepen divisions. We see claims of corruption and a partisan agenda. Some say it shields Abiy Ahmed and ignores national authority. Ethiopia has endured war and pain; trust is thin, and fear of chaos is real.
What is the mandate, and who sits at the table? Is the process inclusive and transparent? How are agendas collected, and why have key groups stepped back? This article examines credibility gaps, selection rules, security limits, and urgent safeguards—like clear communication and interim reporting—to prevent further harm and rebuild unity. We outline what must change for the Ethiopian National Dialogue Committee to earn public trust.
Background of the Ethiopian National Dialogue Committee
Historical context and formation
The Ethiopian National Dialogue Committee was formed during a time of deep crisis in Ethiopia. Political tensions, ethnic violence, and historical grievances had reached dangerous levels. Many reports, such as those published by the Horn Review and on academic sites like Taylor & Francis Online, explain that the idea for national dialogue came after years of unresolved disputes between different groups and the government.
The push for a national dialogue began in earnest around late 2021, as Ethiopia struggled with the aftermath of the Tigray conflict and growing political polarization. The Ethiopian Parliament passed Proclamation No. 1265/2021, officially creating the National Dialogue Commission. This was seen as an effort to tackle the root causes of crisis, such as exclusion, lack of trust, and a sense that politics was becoming a zero-sum game.
Supporters believed that only a country-wide conversation could calm tensions and prevent further division. International organizations and diplomats encouraged the process, hoping it would bring lasting stability to Ethiopia. Still, its birth was marked by skepticism, given the country’s long record of failed peace processes and continued violence.
Objectives of the National Dialogue
The objectives of the Ethiopian National Dialogue are clear and ambitious, but also extremely challenging. According to the Commission’s own website, as well as analysis by the Berghof Foundation and MFA Ethiopia, the main goal is to create national consensus. The dialogue is supposed to:
- Identify and address the root causes of Ethiopia’s deep divisions.
- Establish the basis for a political system that is inclusive, just, and fair for all citizens, regardless of ethnicity or background.
- Bring together government, political leaders, and representatives from all sectors of society to agree on the most important national issues.
- Restore the legitimacy and trust in state institutions that has been lost over decades.
- Pave the way for possible constitutional reform, reconciliation, and ultimately, peace.
The dialogue hopes to move Ethiopia away from cycles of conflict and towards a more unified, stable future. However, this is a very difficult task. As many analysis pieces warn, meaningful participation and real inclusivity are essential if the dialogue is to achieve its aims.
Composition and selection process of the Commission
The composition and selection process for the National Dialogue Commission was intended to reflect Ethiopia’s rich diversity. According to the Commission’s public statements and reporting by academic and NGO sources, the process was as follows:
- Nominees for Commissioner positions were collected from various sections of society, including civil society organizations, religious groups, and professional associations.
- The House of Peoples’ Representatives shortlisted the candidates based on criteria like experience, integrity, and public acceptance.
- Finally, 11 Commissioners were approved and officially appointed.
Attention was given to gender balance, with half of the Commissioners being women. The Commission has also set up expert teams and committees to guide the technical aspects of the dialogue, and is tasked with organizing public consultations and agenda-setting sessions across the country.
However, the process has faced criticism. Some groups argue the selection was not fully transparent or representative of all stakeholders, especially opposition parties and marginalized communities. The Commission still struggles with questions about its independence, given that it was created through a government-led process.
In summary, the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission was created to heal deep divisions, with a structure meant to promote inclusivity. Yet, its ability to fulfill these intentions is still being watched carefully by Ethiopians and the international community alike.
Political exclusion and legacy of mistrust
Political exclusion and legacy of mistrust are central to Ethiopia’s crisis of trust. For decades, different groups have felt pushed out of the country’s political process. The ruling elite has often excluded entire communities, especially under past regimes. This history of exclusion built up a deep suspicion among Ethiopia’s many ethnic groups and regions. According to Foreign Affairs and other sources, only about one-third of Ethiopians trust people outside their ethnic group, which shows how deep-rooted distrust is within the society.
The legacy of mistrust is not just historic; it is always reinforced by new events. Political transitions in Ethiopia have rarely included open and meaningful dialogue. Most changes in government have been marked by conflict and accusations. Powerful groups use state institutions and political tools to maintain power rather than widen participation. This makes marginalized groups feel there is little hope for fair treatment, even under reforms or national dialogue.
Ethnic federalism and national identity
Ethnic federalism and national identity have become a major source of division and crisis in Ethiopia. The country’s federal system, created in the 1990s, organized regions along ethnic lines. This was supposed to answer the demand for self-rule among groups who felt ignored or repressed by central authorities. However, as highlighted by the Wilson Center, Zehabesha.com, and Modern Diplomacy, this model has instead deepened ethnic divisions and weakened the idea of a shared Ethiopian identity.
Ethnic federalism encourages people to see themselves first as members of their ethnic group, not as Ethiopians. This makes national unity difficult because each region mainly looks after its own interests. The competition for land, resources, and political power often turns violent. Political elites may even stir up ethnic pride or fear to strengthen their own position, creating cycles of resentment and conflict. National identity suffers, and the hope for a nation based on trust and cooperation fades.
Failure of previous reconciliation efforts
Failure of previous reconciliation efforts has added to Ethiopia’s crisis of trust. In the past, several attempts were made to heal historical wounds and bring people together, such as the Ethiopian Reconciliation Commission. According to reports from JusticeInfo, Zehabesha.com, and scielo.org, these initiatives often failed because they lacked real independence and did not address deep grievances.
For example, the Ethiopian Reconciliation Commission was criticized for not having clear authority or sufficient support from all groups. Transitional justice plans were announced many times, but often did not lead to real results. As a result, communities hurt by violence or exclusion still feel their pain is not recognized. New promises of dialogue or reconciliation are viewed with skepticism because people have been let down before. This cycle of failed reconciliation keeps old wounds open and makes trust in government solutions very low.
Influence of ruling Prosperity Party
Influence of the ruling Prosperity Party (PP) is a constant concern when discussing Ethiopia’s national dialogue. The PP, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, now controls most political institutions in Ethiopia. According to SWP Berlin, Africa Intelligence, and Ethiopia Insight, critics argue that the national dialogue process is seen as guided and limited by the Prosperity Party. Members of the national dialogue commission were mostly selected by government allies, making many voices in Ethiopia believe the process is not neutral.
This party dominance leads to fears that the national dialogue is only a show or is meant to legitimize existing power while real opposition groups and critical communities are kept out. The PP’s power also discourages honest debate because people worry about being punished for criticism. For many, the national dialogue is just another step in the tradition of top-down control, not a true path to national healing. This weakens confidence that genuine issues will be addressed, and trust across divides will actually grow.
Criticisms and Controversies
Perceived government dominance and lack of independence
Perceived government dominance over the Ethiopian National Dialogue Committee is one of the most common criticisms from both inside and outside Ethiopia. Many observers point to the committee’s close ties to the ruling Prosperity Party and the state as signs it may not act independently. Reports highlight that the selection process for commissioners appears to favor individuals with links to the ruling political elite, sparking worries about political influence over the dialogue’s agenda and decisions. International think tanks and local analysts note that this relationship undermines confidence in the process, making a genuinely open or neutral dialogue difficult. Critics argue that as long as the government dominates the committee, the process risks becoming an exercise to validate existing policies instead of creating real change.
Exclusion of key stakeholders and groups
Exclusion is another serious issue facing the Ethiopian National Dialogue. Many Civil Society Organizations, opposition parties, and ordinary citizens have called out the dialogue for failing to ensure the participation of all critical actors.
Civil society and marginalized community concerns
Civil society groups and marginalized communities are also significantly underrepresented. Many local advocacy groups claim that the committee does not reflect the diversity of Ethiopian society. Instead, it is seen to rely on politically safe or pro-government organizations. This exclusion means that issues vital to minorities, women, and other vulnerable groups might never be addressed seriously. Widespread local and international reports warn that leaving these voices out will only deepen divisions and leave many Ethiopians feeling their perspectives do not matter.
Lack of transparency and accountability
Lack of transparency and accountability surrounding the National Dialogue Committee’s work is another major problem. Many Ethiopians find it hard to access information related to the committee’s meetings, funding, or decisions. Some stories even suggest records are deliberately kept vague, and public reporting is patchy or highly filtered. Critics say this feeds concern that the committee is operating behind closed doors, with little oversight from the public, parliament, or watchdogs. The absence of real accountability measures has also led to questions about how the committee manages disagreements, ensures fair documentation, or deals with conflicts of interest.
Suppression of dissent and freedom of speech
Suppression of dissent and attacks on freedom of speech affect the dialogue process at every stage. Human rights organizations, journalists, and opposition figures regularly report harassment, arrests, and intimidation designed to silence criticism of the committee or the broader political process. Laws on hate speech and disinformation are sometimes used to target dissenting voices or shut down critical reporting, both online and offline. Several reputable groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, warn that as long as peaceful critics risk detention or retaliation, genuine dialogue is almost impossible. Without protection for free expression, the committee’s consultations cannot hope to reflect Ethiopia’s full range of opinions or lived experiences.
These criticisms reflect deep concerns about how the National Dialogue is organized and run. Without addressing these issues, many fear the process may not lead to the lasting peace or unity that Ethiopia needs.
Public participation mechanisms
Public participation mechanisms are designed to make the Ethiopian National Dialogue process more inclusive. The Commission claims to use several methods, including public consultations, community meetings, and agenda-gathering exercises. These are supposed to give different groups the chance to share their views and priorities with officials. Reports from organizations like CARDETH and comments from media like The Habesha highlight that participant selection and agenda collection are meant to be open, at least in theory. Additionally, regional workshops and written submissions are sometimes encouraged as ways for the broader public, civil society, and even diaspora communities to contribute.
However, there are many concerns about how well these participation mechanisms work in reality. Some experts and community members believe the consultations are too limited, with short time-frames, limited outreach to remote areas, and little feedback to participants afterward. Critics point out that while meetings are organized, not all important voices are actually heard or taken seriously. Community influence over the official dialogue agenda also remains weak, according to analysis in SWP-Berlin’s research and repeated in civil society statements. As a result, trust in these mechanisms is often low, especially in conflict-affected and marginalized communities.
Regional disparities and divergent perspectives
Regional disparities play a big role in shaping people’s perceptions of the National Dialogue in Ethiopia. According to several sources, including Horn Review and The Habesha reports, regions with histories of exclusion, marginalization, or active conflict feel sidelined in the process. For example, major differences in views exist between the northern regions (such as Tigray or Amhara) and the southern or central parts of the country. These differences are driven by not just current issues, but also by painful historical grievances, uneven development, and a lack of equal representation at the national level.
Divergent perspectives also stem from Ethiopia’s ethnic federal system, with each region having its own priorities, fears, and interpretations of justice and national unity. Some citizens are hopeful that the national dialogue could finally address these deep fractures; others worry it is simply another exercise controlled by Addis Ababa. Many debate whether the process truly represents all ethnic and regional interests or if it is just a forum for elites. There are also complaints that regions most impacted by violence or state repression have less opportunity to share their views safely. In general, these regional gaps cast doubt on the overall effectiveness and legitimacy of the dialogue.
Concerns over superficial consultations
Concerns over superficial consultations are widespread and growing. Many critics argue that dialogue sessions are more about checking boxes than genuine engagement. Public meetings are often short, poorly advertised, or held in ways that discourage open discussion. Some civil society organizations, as reported by The Habesha and ISS Africa, accuse the Commission of holding “tokenistic” consultations. Rather than allowing for real argument or compromise, sessions often follow strict scripts, with little chance to challenge government narratives or the Commission’s prepared agenda.
Adding to public worry, there is little transparency about what happens to input gathered during consultations. Many people fear their voices are ignored and the real decisions are made behind closed doors. Community groups and opposition leaders sometimes see these consultations as an attempt to manufacture legitimacy, not to solve Ethiopia’s serious crises. This sense of being sidelined increases skepticism about the entire process and could push more groups to boycott, protest, or disengage entirely. The result is a dangerous cycle, where lack of trust makes participation seem pointless, which in turn weakens the prospects for true national reconciliation.
Ongoing political violence and security risks
Ongoing political violence and security risks are some of the biggest obstacles facing the Ethiopian National Dialogue process. Even in 2024, the country faces frequent armed clashes and violent incidents. In May alone, over 140 incidents of political violence and more than 500 deaths were recorded, showing the scale of insecurity. Regions like Amhara and Oromia are hotspots, with regular battles between federal forces, regional militias, and armed opposition groups.
These security risks make it very hard for dialogue meetings and consultations to happen safely. Many stakeholders fear gathering or expressing their views, worried about arrests or attacks. In some areas, state institutions cannot guarantee basic safety for either officials or citizens. Human rights reports also highlight ongoing civilian killings, forced displacement, abuse, and even ethnic cleansing. Without a basic level of peace, there is little space for open conversations or trust-building.
The persistent security crisis discourages wide participation in national dialogue. Key opposition groups and even local communities are often unwilling to join, believing real peace guarantees are not in place. Until violence is addressed and security improves, the credibility and effectiveness of the dialogue will continue to be questioned.
Socio-economic instability and humanitarian crises
Socio-economic instability and humanitarian crises create further hurdles for any national dialogue in Ethiopia. In 2024, the country faces severe poverty, high unemployment, and inflation. Conflict, climate shocks, and drought have pushed millions into food insecurity. The United Nations estimates that over 21 million Ethiopians need humanitarian support, with nearly 3 million internally displaced and more than a million refugees in the country.
Many families depend on rain-fed agriculture, but recent droughts have destroyed crops and livestock. Rising food and fuel prices make life even harder. This deepens despair and frustration, with many people more focused on meeting basic needs than on participating in national politics.
Socio-economic hardship also fuels mistrust of the government and the dialogue process itself. For some, it feels like political leaders are talking while ordinary people go hungry. These crises not only distract from dialogue efforts but also create new grievances that could spark yet more conflict. Bringing relief, stability, and jobs is closely connected to building trust and achieving a meaningful national conversation.
Polarization among ethnic and political groups
Polarization among ethnic and political groups is possibly the biggest barrier to a successful national dialogue. Ethiopia’s multi-ethnic federal system, founded on the idea that each group has its own region and political space, has deepened divisions over the years. Many political parties mostly represent their own ethnic base rather than national interests. The sense of mistrust and historical grievances remains very strong.
During the current national dialogue, experts and civil society groups have warned that ethnic polarization is getting worse. The competing visions for Ethiopia—some want a stronger united state, while others seek deep regional or even ethnic autonomy—make agreement extremely hard. Some groups feel the process does not respect their history or identity. Others fear any change will hurt their rights.
Mistrust is not just between the government and opposition. Even within ethnic blocs, divisions and rivalries abound. This environment encourages exclusivity, not compromise, and makes it hard for constructive dialogue to take root. Building consensus will take more than meetings—it will require deep, genuine engagement and confidence-building between all groups if Ethiopia hopes to overcome this dangerous polarization.
Attempts at Reform and Inclusivity
Efforts to broaden stakeholder engagement
Efforts to broaden stakeholder engagement in the Ethiopian National Dialogue process have faced many challenges but also show signs of progress. Stakeholder engagement is seen as vital by both local leaders and the international community. The Ethiopian National Dialogue Committee, recognizing early criticisms of exclusivity, has been making more visible attempts to involve a wider range of voices. This includes reaching out to political parties, regional administrations, traditional elders, and religious leaders. There have also been proposals to hold open forums in key cities and rural areas.
However, many experts and activists argue these efforts do not yet go far enough. Various groups, especially opposition figures and ethnic minority representatives, often report feeling marginalized or simply invited as a formality. Some recent workshops and consultations have included a broader guest list, but the impact remains limited unless inclusion leads to genuine influence over the dialogue’s agenda. For real reform, many believe the authorities must ensure that every community and political grouping in Ethiopia has a seat at the table and a chance to set priorities.
Calls for grassroots and community involvement
Calls for grassroots and community involvement have grown louder as it becomes clear that national-level talks alone cannot heal Ethiopia’s deep wounds. Many Ethiopians want the dialogue to be rooted in everyday concerns, not just elite politics. Activists, academics, and local elders stress that only by listening to ordinary citizens can the dialogue address problems ranging from mutual distrust to land disputes.
Grassroots involvement has been encouraged in some regions through town hall meetings and community listening sessions. But there are complaints these are often tightly managed, with participants hand-picked or discouraged from expressing controversial views. Critics say the process risks appearing as a top-down exercise unless civil society groups, women, youth, and marginalized minorities are given real opportunities to share their experiences and shape possible solutions. Successful national reconciliation in Ethiopia, many argue, depends on building trust from the ground up.
International pressure and expectations
International pressure and expectations are high concerning the Ethiopian National Dialogue’s inclusivity and fairness. Foreign governments, especially from the United States and European Union, as well as organizations like the African Union and United Nations, have all called for an open and independent process. These actors insist the dialogue should not be seen as a government showpiece but as a genuine effort at reconciliation and sustainable peace.
Donors and diplomats have warned that ongoing support depends on clear evidence of inclusivity. This means not just inviting a range of groups, but actively addressing criticism—such as the exclusion of armed factions, or restrictions on dissent. Some international bodies have even offered technical and financial assistance to make the dialogue more participatory.
The Ethiopian government and the Dialogue Committee have responded by showing a willingness—at least in statements—to consider greater openness. Yet, doubts remain about whether these gestures will result in real power-sharing, or are mainly attempts to satisfy external expectations. Ultimately, Ethiopia’s ability to meet international standards for an open, credible process will determine both the dialogue’s local legitimacy and the country’s future relationships with its international partners.
Possibility of constitutional reform
The possibility of constitutional reform is a central question in Ethiopia’s national dialogue process. Many Ethiopians view constitutional change as necessary for resolving deep political and ethnic divisions that have plagued the country for decades. According to recent analysis on Ethiopia Insight and Horn Review, the National Dialogue could become a decisive factor in whether constitutional amendments move forward or not. The dialogue is expected to identify if there is a shared national demand for change, including contentious topics such as federalism, language rights, and the structure of the state.
For any amendment, Ethiopia’s constitution requires a complex legal process, including a two-thirds majority in both federal houses of Parliament and ratification by a majority of state councils. Reformers argue that only comprehensive constitutional reform can heal fractures and create lasting peace. However, critics warn that if the process lacks inclusivity or transparency, attempts at reform may deepen existing rifts rather than fix them. The stakes are high—and the outcome of the national dialogue could chart the country’s political course for generations.
Risks of increased conflict or fragmentation
Risks of increased conflict or fragmentation are real concerns as Ethiopia embarks on its national dialogue. According to the Clingendael Institute, ongoing civil wars, deep political fragmentation, and continued repression threaten to undercut the effectiveness of the process. Violence and distrust have led some key opposition and armed groups to withdraw from participation, leaving the legitimacy of the dialogue in question.
Experts warn that if the dialogue is perceived as unfair or as an attempt for the government to consolidate power, it may actually increase local unrest. Boundary disputes, ethnic polarization, and grievance-driven violence could escalate, particularly if the process fails to reflect Ethiopia’s full diversity. Without meaningful consensus, the risk is that national dialogue becomes a missed opportunity, fueling new cycles of instability and even potential state fragmentation.
Role of referendums and public opinion
The role of referendums and public opinion is expected to be crucial in Ethiopia’s pathway forward. The National Dialogue has begun a series of public consultations and independent surveys to map public sentiment on peace, justice, and reform. According to Ethiopia Insight and Horn Review, these mechanisms are meant to build legitimacy and roots for any decisions made, particularly those regarding constitutional reform.
If genuine, broad-based participation is ensured, referendums could give Ethiopians a direct say in changes to their constitution or governmental structure. Still, observers remain concerned that without full transparency and inclusivity, public opinion might be sidelined or misrepresented. Trust must be built through open discussion and by addressing the grievances of all ethnic and political groups, not just those allied with the current government.
Scenarios for success or failure
Scenarios for success or failure are being closely watched inside and outside Ethiopia. According to recent reviews (such as at the Heinrich Böll Foundation and Ethiopia Insight), success depends on the dialogue’s ability to be genuinely inclusive, address root grievances, and facilitate real power-sharing. A successful outcome would mean Ethiopian stakeholders reach consensus on controversial issues, potentially leading to peaceful constitutional reform and a new era of national unity.
On the other hand, failure could come if the process is dominated by a few actors, if key groups are excluded, or if violence and mistrust derail talks. In this case, not only would the dialogue likely collapse, but the legitimacy of the government and prospects for peace could deteriorate even further. Some warn that if the current flaws—such as lack of trust, transparency, or participation—are not corrected soon, Ethiopia might face a new wave of internal conflict, further economic decline, and deepened fragmentation.
The National Dialogue, therefore, could be a historic opportunity—but it is also fraught with dangers if not managed carefully and inclusively.
Impact on governance and national cohesion
Impact on governance and national cohesion is one of the most debated results of Ethiopia’s National Dialogue Committee. According to many recent sources, the national dialogue aims to address Ethiopia’s chronic political crisis and build a consensus for the future. The process promises a framework for more inclusive, just, and fair governance, especially in a country deeply divided along ethnic and regional lines.
However, if the dialogue fails to include all important groups, it could create more instability instead of solving old issues. Some reports highlight a serious risk: exclusion of key political players and armed groups can lead to a legitimacy crisis for the National Dialogue and deepen divisions. Critics also say the process is at risk of being tightly controlled by the government, which raises concern about whether it can really promote national unity.
Despite these concerns, if properly managed, Ethiopia’s national dialogue could help break the cycle of exclusion and violence. It may help create laws and institutions that better represent Ethiopia’s many communities, giving everyone a real seat at the table. Yet, for this to work, the process must be transparent, fair, and genuinely inclusive. Only then can national cohesion be strengthened and governance improved for the long term.
Lessons for neighboring countries and regional implications
Lessons for neighboring countries and regional implications are important because Ethiopia’s stability directly affects the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia shares borders with countries like Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, and Kenya. Any breakdown or success in Ethiopia’s dialogue process can quickly spill across these borders.
Neighboring countries can learn that national dialogues must be broad and inclusive from the start. Past experiences in other African countries show that exclusion of important groups usually leads to failure or even further violence. Clear implementation mechanisms for any dialogue outcome are also essential. It’s not enough to only agree on paper; the process must ensure change is real and lasting.
The regional implications are also serious. Ethiopia is a political and economic powerhouse in East Africa. If the national dialogue leads to peace and stability, neighboring countries can benefit from increased trade, security, and cooperation. On the other hand, if Ethiopia’s dialogue collapses, there could be new waves of refugees, cross-border ethnic conflicts, and economic shocks—all of which could destabilize the entire region.
Long-term prospects for peace and integration
Long-term prospects for peace and integration in Ethiopia remain deeply uncertain. While some analysts see hope, others warn of possible setbacks. If the National Dialogue Committee succeeds, Ethiopia could finally address root causes of conflict, like political exclusion and questions over national identity. This would lay the groundwork for lasting peace and a more integrated society.
But there are still big challenges. Many people distrust the government’s intentions and worry the process may not be as open as promised. There’s a strong risk that, unless power is shared more fairly and all communities feel heard, cycles of violence could return. Continued political repression and ongoing conflicts in various regions might further threaten the chances for true integration.
Nevertheless, with genuine commitment to inclusivity, a transparent legal process, and real follow-through on reforms, Ethiopia could become an example for peacebuilding in Africa. Achieving this will require time, patience, and trust among all sides. If successful, the benefits would be felt not only in Ethiopia, but across the Horn of Africa. If the process falters, it may set back hopes for peace in the region for many years.